If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

"The mass media are funny in the way they deal with new technology. First it’s all “Wow, that’s Cool!”, then it’s “Ooh, that’s scary”, and finally it’s “BURN THE WITCH!”. Then a year or so later it’s part of normal life and they treat it as such. We’ve seen the same pattern repeated time and time again over the years.

Seasoned readers may remember silly stories in the papers claiming that the Soviets could somehow use the technology in Western 8-bit home computers for nefarious purposes, since then a myriad breathless exclusives have predicted a youth meltdown which never materialised as the inevitable result of computer gaming, and more recently groundless panics have erupted over 3D printing of gun parts. There might be a British flavour to the examples in this piece because that’s where it is being written, but it’s a universal phenomenon wherever in the world technologically clueless journalists are required to fill column inches on technical stories.
The latest piece of technology to feel the heat in this way is the multirotor. Popularly referred to as the drone, you will probably be most familiar with them as model-sized aircraft usually with four rotors. We have been fed a continuous stream of stories involving tales of near-misses between commercial aircraft and drones, and there is a subtext in the air that Something Must Be Done.

The catalyst for this piece is the recent story of a collision with a British Airways plane 1700ft over West London approaching London Heathrow. The ever-hyperbolic Daily Mail sets the tabloid tone for the story as a drone strike, while the BBC’s coverage is more measured and holds a handy list of links to near-miss reports from other recent incidents. This incident is notable in particular because a Government minister announced that it is now believed to have been caused by a plastic bag, and since there is already appropriate legislation there was little need for more. A rare piece of sense on a drone story from a politician. The multirotor community is awash with plastic bag jokes but this important twist did not seem to receive the same level of media attention as the original collision.

Are multirotors unfairly being given bad press? It certainly seems that way as the common thread among all the stories is a complete and utter lack of proof. But before we rush to their defence it’s worth taking a look at the recent stories and examining their credibility. After all if there really are a set of irresponsible owners flying into commercial aircraft then they should rightly be bought to book and it would do us no favours to defend them. So let’s examine each of those incident reports from that BBC story.

At this point, not being multirotor experts we did what every sane writer should when faced with that situation but few do. We sought someone with the expert knowledge to shed some light on the matter. A friend of Hackaday is a multirotor flier and builder of many years experience, and as we continue it is his input that informs the writing here."

Quoted from the article...

The opening basically states that other reporting sources are sensationalist and exaggerated while it takes the opinion of just one person, somebody they call an expert because they have been building and flying drones "for many years"... (and my playing with Matchbox cars for many years as a child makes me an expert on matters relating to real cars)

You agree with this? That the news sources like the BBC are wrong and that the writer, and indeed people like yourself is right?

Other than the report from the pilot stating it was a drone strike you mean?

From what Ive seen there has never actually been a retraction of that report. It was mentioned that contrary to the official report made by the pilot it might have been something else and you have decided that the person who saw it first hand must have been wrong for some reason and are going with the none drone strike version.

Thats fair enough I can go along with that, theres nothing wrong with that at all, I can go along with that because I know for sure one day there will be a drone strike. And it will be on that day that something will happen.

Until then I wait, hoping it will be sooner rather than later because I dont really care as long as Im not one of those onboard when it happens.

But either way. The article, its rather telling that it was written by somebody who is pro low drone laws dont you think. In the way its written.

The drone is a terrorists dream - its impossible for the authorities to monitor them - small payload of something nasty delivered by drone into a nuclear power station - they must be cacking themselves with the potential for threat.